The Modern Scottish Jury in Criminal Trials The Modern Scottish Jury in Criminal Trials 7. Jury Size Background 7.1 In Scotland, legislation prescribes that the criminal trial jury comprise 15 individuals. If a juror becomes ill during a trial or is excused for some reason the trial may continue provided a minimum of 12 jurors remains. Cases where juries consisting of fewer than 15 members have deliberated and returned verdicts are not commonplace but neither are they a rarity. Before a jury can return a verdict of guilty in any case, even where jurors have been excused, at least 8 of the jurors must be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This number of 15 jurors is generally higher than in other jurisdictions that use juries. Juries of 12 or 9 are far more common. Historically, in Scotland, legislation has been used to allow for a temporary reduction in the number of jurors required.

For example, during the second world war, the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1939 provided for juries in criminal cases (except treason and murder) to number 7 - but a verdict of guilty required 5 votes. 7.2 The Scottish Government would like to stimulate debate on the size of the Scottish criminal jury and what any change to the number of jurors serving on jury might mean for the number of votes required to reach a guilty verdict. It recognises that this is a complex issue which is linked to some fundamental principles of Scots law. This is not a topic on which the Government sees an urgent need for early legislation: rather, it wishes through discussion to test the case for change. Only if the case were strong and well evidenced would the Government move towards constructive change. To assist this process, the Government would welcome your views on whether it is time to review the number of citizens required to constitute a jury; if so, what that number should be; and what number of votes would be required to reach a guilty verdict in such circumstances. 7.3 We do not know why criminal juries in Scotland have 15 members.

It would seem that, historically, juries of 15 became common and accepted. As an odd number it ensures that a majority verdict is always achieved. But it is not the only model. Many jurisdictions have smaller juries. We need to ask whether the distinctively large Scottish jury is a distinction based on merit - the fact that things have always been this way is not a good reason for still accepting them in today's world. Indeed, this is not the first time that such issues have been explored in Scotland 4 and further afield. A possible argument for change 7.4 This may be put simply. Juries make demands on individual citizens; they provide a public service and are supported by the taxpayer. Smaller juries would require a smaller juror 'pool'; they would make fewer demands on citizens; they would be easier to administer; and they would cost less. To illustrate: to operate a jury of 11 (rather than 15 - assuming for the moment that maintaining an odd number is desirable) would require 4,000 fewer balloted jurors per annum and would generate savings of around £450,000 per annum in terms of juror allowances alone.

The losses to individuals and to the wider economy linked to the present system would be reduced as fewer people would be taken out of their normal employment. There would be further benefits, to individuals and to the community at large, from time and resources saved. At a time when the juror pool is under stress, it makes sense to consider these apparent benefits, to ask what impact smaller juries would have on the justice system more broadly, and to explore whether there would be any associated costs or disadvantages. Evidence from research & comparative studies 7.5 Some academic studies 5 have highlighted the need to guard against juries which are too small, citing the abilities of larger juries to counterbalance better any prejudices harboured by individual jurors and an improved level of deliberation, possibly on account of larger groups tending to have a better collective memory when it comes to recalling evidence. But these studies, mainly drawing on American experience, are generally focussed on proposals to reduce jury sizes from 12 to 8 or 6 - their starting point is already significantly below the norm in Scotland - and we do not know if the arguments would have the same force if applied to rather larger juries.

7.6 What we do know is that Scotland's requirement for a jury of 15 is the highest in Europe. In France jury trials, or tribunals, consist of 3 magistrates and a jury of 9. In Spain a jury must comprise nine jurors and two alternates. Germany does not have juries in the traditional sense, minor crimes being heard by a judge and serious crimes are heard by a panel of 5 (comprising 3 professional judges and 2 lay members). In Denmark, recent court reforms will result in a reduction of juror numbers from 12 to 9. 7.7 Numbers alone however tell us little. Most European criminal justice systems are substantially different to the Scottish adversarial system and in some cases juries do not participate until the appeal stage, if at all. In some respects, although the origins are, again, different to Scotland, it is more helpful to look at common law countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 7.8 Typically, juries in these common law jurisdictions have juries of 12, though some states in the USA have juries with as few as 6 members.

What is striking about these jurisdictions, however, is the difficulty they encounter in securing verdicts. In Canada and New Zealand, verdicts must be unanimous, often leading to costly re-trials. In the USA it is also common for juries to have difficulty reaching a verdict: a 'hung' jury can lead to a mistrial requiring the case to be retried. The costs falling on other parts of the justice system arising from the operation of smaller juries clearly need to be factored into any cost/benefit analysis. 7.9 In England and Wales, where juries consist of 12 individuals, historically jury verdicts had to be unanimous. But in 1967 the Criminal Justice Act removed the requirement for unanimity. Initially juries will be directed by the Judge to seek a unanimous verdict. However, if at some point following two hours of deliberations no unanimous decision is reached, further instructions may be given. Under the Act, a majority of 10 to 2 may be permitted to secure either a conviction or an acquittal. Ultimately, if the jury is divided on a ratio of 9 to 3 or evenly, there will be a retrial. What about the majority verdict?

7.10 In order to reach a verdict in Scotland, a simple majority is all that is required: that is, a minimum of 8 jurors must agree. A further distinction in Scotland's criminal justice system is the availability of three verdicts: guilty; not guilty and not proven (though for the purposes of determining a majority, both not guilty and not proven are counted together as acquittals). It is not the intention of this consultation paper to explore the three-verdict system in Scotland. That topic would merit a consultation paper on its own and was considered in 1994. But in the context of reviewing the number of jurors sitting on a jury it is impossible to avoid mention of verdicts, even if only in addressing the likely effect on achieving a majority verdict. 7.11 By midway through the sixteenth century, verdict by majority had become formally established as an integral part of trial by jury in Scotland. It has been argued that consideration should be given to a system of weighted rather than simple majority verdicts as this would better reflect the principle of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A weighted majority verdict would be one where a greater number of jurors elect to find the accused guilty; in Scotland a number greater than 8 requiring, perhaps, for example, a ratio of 11:4 or 12:3 in favour of conviction. The second report of the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland 6 also considered the merits of the majority verdict. Although Sheriff G.H. Gordon argued that an accused should not be convicted when more than one-third of the jury were not satisfied of his/her guilt, a majority of the Thomson Committee disagreed with him. The Committee argued that the introduction of a weighted majority would on the whole be more likely to enable the guilty to escape conviction than to protect the innocent accused from an undeserved conviction. 7.12 Whatever the requirement, the fairness of the trial and security of the verdict is paramount. The larger the jury, the more difficult it might be to achieve unanimity leading to a greater need for a majority verdict. But that should not be at the cost of upholding the presumption of innocence of every person accused of a crime.

Conversely, the smaller the jury, the greater the risks of any one juror's views prevailing leading to a greater need for weighted verdicts, if not unanimity. 7.13 There are some particular safe-guards embedded in the Scottish criminal justice system. While there are three verdicts, both "not guilty" and "not proven" count as acquittals. If no majority is achieved the accused must be acquitted rather than re-tried. Finally, the Crown must always corroborate the essential facts of the case: that the crime was committed and that the accused was the perpetrator. The existence of these two factors distinguishes Scotland from other jurisdictions and indeed could potentially continue to reinforce confidence in verdicts even if the number of jurors in a criminal trial was reduced from 15. Managing the risk of excusals: substitute jurors 7.14 In reviewing jury size it is essential also to consider the impact that excusal of jurors has on the size of a jury and its ability to return a verdict. Clearly, if a juror is unwell he or she must be excused.

But if illness strikes a smaller panel and one or more jurors has to be excused, at what point would it be impossible to continue without affecting the fairness of the trial and reliability of the verdict? This is not an unfamiliar issue. It can, and does, happen already but a panel of 15 jurors may leave more room for such eventualities without affecting the delivery of justice. If the number of jurors were reduced from 15, it might be thought necessary to have in place a number of additional, substitute jurors to replace any casualties and so ensure that the overall number of jurors did not fall below an acceptable limit. Of course, juries of 15 might be thought to benefit from such an arrangement also. But we must consider the balance of cost against benefit there. With a higher number of jurors, the risk of falling below a level at which justice can properly be dispensed is much reduced. The routine inclusion of substitute jurors would come at a very considerable financial cost which may be difficult to justify when seen against the number of cases that might benefit. And there are very severe physical constraints on the vast majority of Scottish criminal courtrooms which would make it very difficult indeed to introduce substitute jurors on top of the current 15.

There may be other safeguards that could be employed to reduce that risk in long running trials, as discussed at chapter 8 below. Quorum 7.15 As already noted (and explored in more detail in chapter 8 ), jurors may be excused after the trial has commenced. The current quorum - the minimum size of jury for it to be competent - is 12. That implies a ratio of 4:5. In some parts of the United States, the ratio is very different - for example 3:4 where the quorum is 9 out of 12 jurors. That is also the position in England and Wales. Research points to the dangers inherent in small juries. But there is, arguably, an equally negative impact on the interests of justice where, on quorum breach, a trial requires to be discontinued and recommenced at a later date. Is there a case for revising the quorum, or for giving the court discretion to override any quorum and enable proceedings to continue despite quorum breach, on the present size of jury? In what circumstances might the exercise of such discretion be justified? What safeguards would need to be put in place to preserve justice for the accused?

And if the size of the jury were reduced to below 15, what would be the implications for the quorum? Where should it be fixed? We look more closely at the specific issues of quorum in lengthy trials below, where it might be argued that the debate over where the interests of justice lie is brought most sharply into focus. Balloting of Jurors: Brown v HMA 7.16 The case of Brown v HMA 2006 called for legislative action to set a minimum size of pool from which jurors would be balloted for service. That case arose from concern that the original pool from which the jury was to be balloted was 22 in number. It was held that empanelling 15 jurors from a pool of 22 lacked the appearance of fairness and, accordingly, there had been a miscarriage of justice. 7.17 The Scottish Government is alive to the suggestion that a minimum number be set. Size of the ballot is, however, directly related to jury size. While questions remain unresolved as to those issues around the size of the jury, it is difficult to move on to any meaningful consideration of the implications of the decision in Brown.

As such, we propose postponing any action to implement the decision in Brown, meantime, at least until the outcome of this consultation and identification of any next steps in relation to jury size. Conclusion 7.18 Reducing the number of jurors would help alleviate the burden of jury duty on citizens. It also has the potential to produce significant financial savings, significantly reducing the costs of juror reimbursement. 7.19 However, the Scottish jury of 15 has its advantages. Presently, the requirement of a majority verdict ensures the accused always receives a verdict. There are no 'hung juries' or re-trials in Scotland. Arguably this is a position we would not want to alter. Equally, we might not wish juror excusal through illness or some other eventuality to result in the abandonment of a trial and a new trial commencing, particularly if such an event took place in the latter stages. The possibility of a re-trial for any of the reasons above would be likely to significantly reduce any of the potential savings identified from jury reimbursement. 7.20 But if we have smaller juries could the interests of justice be preserved? And what might that mean for their quorum?

Even if the jury of 15 is retained, it may be that the current quorum of 12 is too restrictive and should either be reduced outright or capable of being reduced at the discretion of the court, having regard to the interests of justice. 7.21 It may be that this issue is too complex to identify a clear way forward at this stage. There may be merit in the Scottish Government commissioning a short focused review by experts on the issue of the majority required for verdicts and its correlation with jury size. We invite your views on this. Questions Do you think the number of jurors in criminal trials in Scotland should be reduced? Please explain why you think it should or should not. If it were reduced, to what number should it be reduced and what number of votes should be required to reach a verdict? Should there be a minimum jury quorum required, below which a trial should be discontinued? If so, what should that number be and would it be affected by a reduction in jury size? If there is a quorum, what should be the effect of the number of jurors falling below that quorum? Are there any circumstances in which the court should allow such a trial to continue, and, if so, what?

How can the court satisfy itself that the interests of justice are well served? Scotland's unique 15-strong juries will not be abolished - The Scotsman Scotland's unique 15-strong juries will not be abolished 23:15 Sunday 10 May 2009 01:23 Monday 11 May 2009 PLANS to axe the historic 15-person jury in Scottish criminal trials have been ditched by ministers, The Scotsman can reveal. Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said that after extensive consultation, he had decided the only system of its kind in the world should be retained – and that Scotland had got it "uniquely right". Mr MacAskill admitted he had been sceptical about the 15-person panel, amid criticism that such big juries could be unwieldy and it can be hard to find 15 suitable jurors for every trial. But he told The Scotsman: "The matter of jury numbers was part of the review I launched last year and I was sceptical at that time about the fact Scotland was unique in the world in having 15 members.

But as the information has come in, I'm persuaded that this may in fact be one of those examples where Scotland has got it uniquely right." He added: "When you take into account that we don't have the expense in time and money of retrials because a simple 8-7 majority is sufficient, we have a pretty efficient system already." The Scottish Government consultation on juries looked at such issues as the make-up of juries, age limits, remuneration and selection. Mr MacAskill has already indicated he would look favourably on raising the age limit from 65 to 70. That could add 200,000 names to the pool of prospective jurors. The number of jury trials in Scotland has increased steadily in recent years, from 2,750 in 2005/6 to 3,234 in 2007/8. About 50,000 citizens each year are asked to sit on a jury.

In the consultation process, some advantages of 15-person juries were noted as being that people still have confidence in the system, larger juries lead to fairer verdicts, they are less likely to be influenced by prejudice, they allow for majority verdicts and are composed of a greater cross section of the public. Against this were arguments that 15-person juries often lead to unwieldy discussions and that the juror pool is being stretched by the requirement of having so many jurors for each trial. Scotland's best-known advocate, Donald Findlay QC, said: "I am pleased and I am surprised. It is unusual for me to complement a Scot Nat minister for doing the right thing rather than being driven by cost-cutting, which is what this would have been." John Scott, who tabled a consultation submission against a reduction in the size of jurors on behalf of Scotland's solicitor advocates, said: "The system works as it is. In the vast majority of cases the juries get it right and there is a dynamic with 15 that we couldn't guarantee to be there if we tinker with it." Defence lawyers were one of the groups to generally favour larger juries.

A straw poll of advocates and solicitor advocates at the start of the consultation process found not a single voice in favour of reducing the size. Ian Duguid QC, Chairman of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association, summed up the general sceptical view: "There doesn't seem any reason to change it if it is not broken." UNIQUE SYSTEM THAT RULES ON GUILT OR INNOCENCE THE Scottish system is thought to have the largest number of jurors in the world. Many jurisdictions have 12 jurors but Scotland has 15. Curiously, there seems to be no clear explanation for the size of a Scottish jury. Professor Lindsay Farmer of Glasgow University said recently: "There isn't any evidence that there was some particularly Scottish reasoning in alighting on 15 as the jury number any more than there was in England for choosing 12 as jury trials evolved in the Middle Ages across Europe. "Most of the justifications for the difference between the two jurisdictions … were developed as rationalisations during the period of Scottish legal nationalism in the mid- 19th century.

But in reality they just happened." Neither is there thought to be any ancient numerological magic underpinning the constitution of a jury, nor modern actuarial analysis of the best number for an optimum collective decision. At present a Scottish jury can convict or acquit on a simple majority. An accused can be sentenced to life on the basis of an 8-7 vote. Grand Jury Section Grand Jury Section WHAT IS A GRAND JURY? The grand jury serves a very special function in Florida’s criminal courts. The only charge a State Attorney cannot file based on his or her constitutional authority is first degree murder. All first degree murder cases must be presented to a grand jury. In this section you will read an overview of what the grand jury is as well as certain functions of the grand jury. Additionally you will find investigative reports and indictments by the grand jury. A grand jury is an investigating, reporting, and accusing agency of the circuit court (or of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the statewide grand jury). It consists of citizens of a specified number who have been summoned and empaneled by a judge of the circuit court (or by a judge appointed by the Florida Supreme Court, in the case of the statewide grand jury).

The grand jury is an agency and an arm of the circuit court (or the Florida Supreme Court in the case of the statewide grand jury) and is uniquely independent. The grand jury is answerable to no person or agency of government except the court that empanels it and, even then, only to the extent that it may exceed its authority and privileges. TERM OF THE GRAND JURY At least two terms of court are held each year and once the grand jury is empaneled, it will serve for the balance of the term of court. In exceptional cases, its term may be extended. (The statewide grand jury's term is for a period of 12 months, but may be extended for up to 18 months.) The grand jury will not be in continuous session but will be called in from time to time as necessary. WHO ARE GRAND JURORS? Grand jurors are United States citizens and legal residents of this state and their respective counties who are at least 18 years of age and who possess a driver's license or identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, or who execute an affidavit indicating a desire to serve as a juror.

All jurors are selected at random and their names are taken from lists prepared by the clerk of the circuit court. The process of selecting jurors is done in most counties by the county commissioners and in some counties by a specially constituted jury commission. When making up the jury list, the officers compiling it are required to select only citizens they believe to be law abiding, and of proven integrity, good character, sound judgment and intelligence, and who are not mentally infirm. GRAND JURY AND PETIT JURY DISTINGUISHED There are two kind of juries: grand juries and petit juries. The grand jury consists of not fewer than 15 nor more than 21 (or 18 for statewide grand jury) members. A petit jury, depending upon the type of trial, consists of either 6 or 12 members. The grand jury and the petit jury have entirely different purposes and functions. A petit jury actually tries a case and renders a verdict of guilty or not guilty after hearing both sides. A grand jury does not try a case on the issue of guilt or innocence. The grand jury rarely hears both sides.

Its function is simply to hear witnesses as to a charge of crime, by the state, and to determine whether the person, or persons, so charged should be brought to trial. The grand jury has been called both a sword and shield of justice — a sword because it is a terror to criminals, a shield because it is protection of the innocent against unjust prosecution. The tremendous power of the grand jury obviously creates grave and solemn responsibilities to see that these powers are not perverted or abused. A grand jury, being possessed with these tremendous powers and unless motivated by the highest sense of justice, might find indictments not warranted by the evidence and thus become a source of oppression to the citizenry. Conversely, a misguided grand jury might dismiss charges against those who should be prosecuted. The importance of the grand jury's power is emphasized by the fact that it is one of the most independent bodies known to the law. Charges of crime may be brought to your attention in several ways: by the court; by the state attorney; from personal knowledge brought to your body by any member of the grand jury; and by private citizens who have a right to be heard by a grand jury in formal session and with the grand jury's consent.

The bulk of the grand jury's work probably will be concerned with cases brought to its attention by the state attorney. In most instances a person being considered for indictment by the grand jury will have been held preliminarily on a charge brought before a judge sitting as a committing magistrate, who bound that person over for action by the grand jury. The accused will be either in custody or on bail. Your action, therefore, should be reasonably prompt in either voting an indictment as to the charge or returning a "no true bill." The grand jury should consult with the State Attorney or an assistant state attorney in advance of undertaking a formal investigation on the grand jury's own initiative. A grand juror may not be subject to partisan secret influences. Consequently, no one has the right to approach a juror in order to persuade that juror that an indictment should or should not be found. Any individual who wishes to be heard by the grand jury should be referred to the State Attorney or to the foreperson of the grand jury, and thereafter be heard only in formal session of the grand jury. It is imperative that you always keep in mind that as a grand juror you are a public official, with the duty of protecting the public by enforcing the law of the land.

Therefore, even though you may think a certain law to be unduly harsh or illogical, that should not influence your judgment in carrying out your duties as a grand juror. A citizen has the right to endeavor to change the law. A grand juror, being a public official, has a duty to enforce the law as it exists despite any personal inclinations to the contrary. The grand jury in addition to the duty of formally indicting those charged with crime has the further important duty of making investigations on its own initiative, which it will report as a presentment. This duty permits investigation of how public officials are conducting their offices and discharging their public trusts. The grand jury may investigate as to whether public institutions are being properly administered and conducted. It has the power to inspect those institutions and, if necessary, may call before the grand jury those in charge of the operations of public institutions as well as any other person who has information and can testify concerning them. If the grand jury finds that an unlawful, improper, or corrupt condition exists, it may recommend a remedy. The grand jury may not act arbitrarily. Investigations shall not be based upon street rumor, gossip, or whim, and the investigations cannot be the subject of a grand jury presentment.

The grand jury can only investigate those matters that are within its jurisdiction, geographic and otherwise. The limitations of the grand jury's jurisdiction have been set forth for you by the court in its instructions. It is important to keep in mind that no individual should be unjustly criticized or held up to scorn or public resentment, particularly when it is remembered that the individuals who may be criticized had no opportunity to defend themselves or give reply to the charges. A grand juror must keep in mind that the grand jury is the ultimate instrument of justice and should never be subverted to become the vehicle for harassment or oppression. THE STATE ATTORNEY AS LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE GRAND JURY The court in its charge to the grand jury outlined the part that the state attorney will play in assisting the grand jury. The State Attorney will assume responsibility for presenting witnesses and bringing testimony before the grand jury. The State Attorney is a public official and is entitled to the confidence and cooperation of the grand jury. It occurs sometimes, however, that even the best of advisors may be in error. If a difference of opinion arises between the state attorney and the grand jury and it cannot be resolved amicably, the matter should be brought before the presiding judge for a ruling.

THE GRAND JURY AS AN ACCUSING AND INVESTIGATING BODY Our constitution provides that no person shall be brought to trial for a capital crime except upon indictment of a grand jury. This means that no one may be prosecuted for a capital crime except by a vote of the grand jury. Except for capital crimes, the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) may initiate all other criminal charges. The grand jury of course may indict for any crime that the evidence justifies. The wisdom of leaving to the state attorney the bringing of charges as to crimes less than capital crimes and traffic violations is readily apparent. If the grand jury was required to initiate the prosecution of less serious crimes through indictment, the grand jury would be so overwhelmed with complaints that it could not perform its more important duties. Source: The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases.For additional information regarding the grand jury in Florida criminal courts visit this website: JURY SERVICE AND JURIES JURY SERVICE - CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE The British and other legal systems rely on verdicts given by 12 members of the public, selected at random. Or, at least that is the theory. In fact it is often the luck of the draw, that determines the outcome, verdict wise.

It is not possible to ensure a juror does not have a particular bias or grudge toward any kind on crime. There are several films that highlight the susceptibility of a Jury to implanted thoughts, such as Runaway Jury and Anatomy of a Murder. In these films the tagline is: Trials are too important to be decided by juries. A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law. The word "jury" originates in Latin, from "juris"-law. In French, it became "juri" a law body. The petit jury or trial jury hears the evidence in a case and decides the disputed facts and usually consists of 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15 jurors in criminal trials. A grand jury, a type of jury now confined almost exclusively to the U.S., conducts investigations of public problems and may approve an application to prosecute someone for a crime, called a bill of indictment, thereby appointing the applicant to serve as the prosecutor.

A report on its investigative findings is called a presentment, which may include authorization to prosecute a criminal offence revealed by that investigation. In most criminal justice systems and some civil cases which need a jury, panels are initially allotted at random from the adult population of the district served by the court concerned. A person who is serving on (is a member of) a jury is known as a juror, and the head juror is called the foreman or presiding juror. The foreman is often chosen before the trial begins. The role of the foreman is to ask questions on behalf of the jury, facilitate jury discussions, and read the verdict of the jury. The number of jurors must be specified, usually twelve, though there are fifteen in Scottish juries and in some legal systems smaller cases may require only six. Since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often some alternate jurors are nominated, who will also follow the trial (but do not take part in deciding the verdict), as a precaution in case a new juror is needed part way through the trial (most often used when the trial will be lengthy or high-profile). Serving on a jury is normally compulsory for those individuals who are qualified for jury service.

Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other. The jurors hear the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution, and in some jurisdictions a summary[citation needed] from the judge. They then retire as a group to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some countries their decision making process is private and may not be disclosed, in others it may be discussed but only after the trial has ended. Historical roots The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif in classical Islamic law and jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in the medieval Islamic world and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law.

Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans after their conquest of England and the Emirate of Sicily, and then evolved into the modern English jury. The modern jury trial as it is now understood was later developed in England during the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, a document issued by Henry II of England in 1166. This established juries of the hundreds and boroughs.

These juries of presentment were required to declare on oath before visiting justices and sheriffs, who were accused or suspected of serious felonies. The function of a presentment jury was to bring cases,which had before only been possible by private appeal. Henry 's assize may well have only formalized a system in operation and first referred to in a decree issued by Aethelred at Wantage, which enacted that in every wapentake "the twelve leading thegns together with the reeve shall go out and swear on the relics which are given into their hands, that they will not accuse any innocent man nor shield a guilty one". The concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes[citation needed]. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case. Many ancient cultures had similar concepts, notably ancient Judea whose panel of judges called the Sanhedrin served a similar purpose. The Athenians by 500 BCE had also invented the jury court, with votes by secret ballot. These courts were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review.

Trial jury size The average jury is made up of 12 randomly-selected people. Historical analysis indicates twelve was not just a "magic number", but a number arrived at through experience trying other sizes. The use of the number 15 for Scottish juries appears to be a legacy of that experimentation. The ancient Athenians tried juries of 201 and sometimes 401. Twentieth century "law office history" seems to hold that the size of the jury is to provide a "cross-section" of the public. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court sustained a state jury of less than twelve persons, finding that six was sufficient to provide a "cross-section". But from the experience of lawyers in jurisdictions where they have a choice of jury size, defendants usually choose twelve, which suggests a different dynamic, and that a jury of twelve provides a higher level of protection of rights, not just representation of diverse views. Prospective jurors awaiting jury selection Secrecy and independence For juries to fulfill their role to analyze the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial.

They are not allowed to learn about the case from any source other than the trial, nor can they conduct their own investigations such as independently visiting the crime scene. Parties, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury, and jurors are not allowed to read news or other accounts of the trial. In high-profile cases, some juries are sequestered for the deliberation phase, or for the entire trial. Conversely, jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence. Whether this non-disclosure requirement extends after the verdict has been rendered depends on the jurisdiction. In English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict, is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offence and can result in imprisonment. In the United States, this rule does not apply, and sometimes jurors have made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly arrived at. Because of the desire to prevent undue influence on a jury, jury tampering is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery, threat of violence, or other means. Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality.

For instance, in 1995, a juror in Vancouver named Gillian Guess slept with a defendant during his murder trial and voted to acquit him. Guess was subsequently convicted of obstruction of justice for her actions, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Role In common law countries such as England and the United States, the role of the jury is often described as a finder of fact, while the judge is seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. The jury will render a verdict on the defendant's guilt, or civil liability. Occasionally, if jurors find the law to be invalid or unfair, they may acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence that the defendant violated the law. This is commonly referred to as jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the judge makes factual rulings in addition to legal ones. In most continental European jurisdictions, the judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted. Actual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.

In the United States, some juries are also entitled to make factual findings on particular aggravating circumstances which will be used to elevate the defendant's sentence, if the defendant is convicted. This practice is now required in all death penalty cases as a result of Blakely v. Washington, where the Supreme Court ruled that allowing judges to make such findings unilaterally violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods and at the time of sentencing, the suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor(s) before the sentence is handed down. However, this is not the practice in most other legal systems based on the English tradition, in which judges retain sole responsibility for deciding sentences according to law. The exception is the award of damages in English law libel cases, although a judge is now obliged to make a recommendation to the jury as to the appropriate amount. Jury nullification In the 17th and 18th centuries there were a series of cases starting in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the (de facto) right of a jury to pass a verdict contrary to the facts or law.

A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in 1728 accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to pass the verdict that the case had been "proven" and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty". This led to the development of the not proven verdict in Scots law. Today in the United States, juries are instructed by the judge to follow his instructions concerning what is the "law", in his opinion, and to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court. If it reaches a conclusion contrary to those instructions, but based on its own beliefs as to what the law is, whether it has been properly applied, or whether it should be the law, this is known as jury nullification. It finds its most common expression when verdicts are rendered based on passion, prejudice, sympathy or bias.

It has been asserted that the jury has the power to "nullify" a law it believes is unjust, by, for example, refusing to find the defendant guilty, in spite of the evidence, if it believes that a guilty verdict would be unjust. Important past exercises of this de facto power include cases involving Slavery (see Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), Freedom of the Press (see John Peter Zenger), and Freedom of Religion (see William Penn). In 1969 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal unanimously ruled: "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision." The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to informing jurors of their rights and seeks laws to force judges to inform jurors that they can and should judge the law. In a still standing decision (Sparf v.

United States, 1895) the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. Modern American jurisprudence is generally intolerant of the practice, and a juror can be removed from a case if the judge believes that the juror is aware of the power of nullification. Jury equity In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called "jury equity". This enables a jury to reach a decision in direct contradiction with the law if they feel the law is unjust. This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge ï¿½ thus a jury has the power to influence the law. Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret information, under s.2 of the Offical Secrets Act, 1911 in 1985. Mr Ponting's defence was that the revelation was in the public interest.

The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" ï¿½ effectively a direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Another example is the acquittal in 1989 of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who confessed in open court to charges of springing the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison and smuggling him to East Germany in 1966. Pottle successfully appealed to the jury to disregard the judge's instruction that they consider only whether the defendants were guilty in law, and assert a jury's ancient right to throw out a politically-motivated prosecution, in this case compounded by its cynical un-timeliness. In Scotland (with a separate legal system from that of England and Wales) although technically the "not guilty" verdict was originally a form of jury nullification, over time the interpretation has changed so that now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal one when a jury is not persuaded of guilt and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt. It is absolutely central to Scottish/UK law that there is a presumption of innocence.

It is not a trivial distinction since any shift in the burden of proof is a significant change which undermines the safeguard for the citizen. Non-trial juries A wine juryBesides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts. Blue ribbon juries attend to civic matters as an ad-hoc body in the executive branch of a government. Outside government, a jury or panel of judges may make determinations in competition, such as at a wine tasting, art exhibition, or talent contest. Blue ribbon juries are juries selected from prominent, well-educated citizens, sometimes to investigate a particular problem such as civic corruption. Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real trials, which require constitutional safeguards to produce a jury of one's peers. The blue-ribbon jury is intended to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions. In the United States blue-ribbon juries were provided for by statutes, the terms varying by jurisdiction. Trial Procedures Brazil In Brazil, the Constitution demands that all cases of first degree murder be judged by juries, but there are authorities that are judged by judges even in cases of first degree murder.

This is the only crime judged by juries in Brazil. Jurors vote in secret to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and decisions are taken by majority. Canada In Canada, juries are used for some criminal trials but not others. For less serious offences that come to trial, a judge alone makes the ruling. In some more serious offences, the accused person can choose to be judged by either a judge or a judge and jury. In the most serious offences, such as murder or treason, a judge and a jury are always used. In Canada, a jury does not make a recommendation as to the length of sentence. In Canada, juries are selected according to a specific selection of criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked certain questions, selected for direct pertinence to impartiality or other relevant matters; any other questions must be approved by the judge. Juries are only rarely used in civil trials in Canada. Juries have no power to award damages, as they do in the United States, making the incentive to call for a trial with a jury to be less attractive. England and Wales All trials are under common law. Jury trials are used for serious criminal cases and some civil cases.

France In France and similarly organized jurisdictions, the jury sits on an equal footing with three professional judges. The jury and judges first consider the questions of guilt. Then, if applicable, they consider the penalty to apply. Germany Jury trials were abolished in Germany on January 4, 1924, because their verdicts were not perceived just anymore. India - Abolition of formal jury trials The Indian judicial system stopped using juries after the famous K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra case. While no formal juries exist in India today, many minor issues are, in rural areas, still handled by the panchayat raj system of village assemblies. K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case involving Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, who was tried for shooting Prem Ahuja, his wife Sylvia's paramour. The incident shocked the nation, got unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and movies. The case was the last jury trial held in India. The crux of the case was whether the gun went off accidentally or whether it was a premeditated murder.

In the former scenario, Nanavati would be charged under the Indian penal code, for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years and in the latter, he would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team argued it as case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder. The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty, with an 8ï¿½1 verdict. The sessions judge considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points. One, the onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati. Two, was Sylvia's confession of the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both. Three, the judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person.

And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. Since the jury had also been influenced by media and public support for Nanavati and was also open to being misled, the Indian government abolished jury trials after the case. Scotland Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach. First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine. Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of 'No Case To Answer' if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime. If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence lead by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness. Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard. The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict.

Spain The Spanish judiciary system has no established tradition of using juries in trials but, after Franco's dictatorship, the Constitution of Spain of 1978 legislates the right to a trial by jury, called "popular jury" as opposed to a "magistrates jury". The wording is rather vague: "Section 125 - Citizens may engage in popular action and take part in the administration of justice through the institution of the jury, in the manner and with respect to those criminal trials as may be determined by law, as well as in customary and traditional courts." Jury trials have been very slowly introduced in Spain and have often produced less than desirable results. One of the first cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in 1997 for the murder of two policemen. After a confused trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge set the accused man free. This verdict shocked the nation. Another jury case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice was the Wanninkhof murder case.

United States (Common Law) In the United States, if no verdict can be reached by the jury (a situation sometimes referred to as a hung jury), a mistrial is declared, and the case may be retried with a newly constituted jury. The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge (in a capital punishment trial by jury) decide between life or death sentences, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses, although this has not yet occurred in an actual trial. There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury will take a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence. Electing a foreman is usually the first step, although for a particularly short or straightforward case, this may not happen until the delivery of the verdict.

If a foreman is elected at the beginning, he or she will chair the discussions, and it is his or her job to try to steer the jury towards a conclusion. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction to the case, which may be by a show of hands. The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The exchanges of views caused by people whose opinions differ from the emerging consensus will air the issues involved in the case, and consequently points will often arise from the trial that were not specifically discussed during it. The result of these discussions is likely to be that one interpretation is shown to be the most reasonable, and a verdict is thus arrived at. In the U.S., juries are used in both criminal law and civil law trials, though they are quite different. In criminal law, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a case to be answered and hence whether the accused should be indicted and sent for trial. A separate petit jury (formed of petit jurors) is then convened to hear the trial. In many areas, depending upon the law, a third jury will determine what the penalty should be or recommend what the penalty should be in the penalty phase.

When used alone the term jury usually refers to a petit jury. In each court district, a group of 16ï¿½23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor and decides if a trial is warranted, in which case an indictment is issued. In general, the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a Grand Jury rejects a proposed indictment it is known as a "no bill"; if they accept to endorse a proposed indictment it is known as a "true bill". Art. III, Sect. 2, Cl. 3 mandates jury trial in federal criminal proceedings by a jury from the state where the crime occurred, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies this mandate to the states. The Sixth Amendment elaborates on the Article III mandate by stating that the jury convened shall be "by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." When framing the Sixth Amendment, the founders had in mind the common law vicinage. However, in practice most criminal actions in the U.S. are resolved by plea bargain.

Juries are also used in many civil cases in the United States, and the Seventh Amendment explicitly preserves the right to a jury trial in civil cases tried in the United States District Courts; however, it has been argued that this preservation of jury trial in civil matters is guided by state restrictions on civil jury trial as an absolute minimum and that the Federal Government is not required to provide a civil jury trial if the state in which the trial is being held does not also mandate civil jury trial in the same matter, since it is a preservation of a pre-existing right held in the states as opposed to unique rights held by the people against the Federal Government solely. Jury Selection Jury selection is a rather complicated process. A jury is made up from a list of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. When selected, being a juror is, in principle, compulsory. However, jurors can be dismissed for several reasons and many people are released from serving on a jury. People can, for instance, claim hardship if they take care of their children, or claim to be biased. Attorneys are routinely dismissed from jury duty for a number of reasons, particularly because attorneys in a community are likely to know of or have some connection with the attorneys involved in the case.

Many individuals are paid only the token amount issued by the court for jury duty, and must take time off from work to serve. Especially for high profile trials, or long trials, it is unusual to compel one to serve because of the possibility that a juror would have other things on their mind, such as their finances, during the trial or deliberations. The first person tried by an all female jury was Judith Catchpole in 1656 for wichcraft and murder. The jury acquitted Catchpole of all charges. ANATOMY OF INJUSTICE: Set against a background of increasing pressure to gain convictions, many police officers fail to investigate fully for fear of finding inconvenient truths, which they will then have to pass to a defense team during the discovery process. The fact is it is all too easy to put an innocent man behind bars where a blunderbuss serious of charges, often used in sexual assault cases, make it all but impossible to mount a defense with alibis for specific events claimed then impossible as a defense. In most cases an allegation grows like a pyramid, once the system kicks in.

Unfortunately, at each stage of the process, the allegation grows as it is passed from one person in the chain to another, each adding their own interpretation and filling in the blanks, so to speak. In this case the girl making the complaint said to begin with that when her mother went out 'the room' her boyfriend would touch her. It was her friends who forced the girl into making the complaint, once she began sending text messages to them. Some time earlier, the girl had made claims to much more serious events, according to the only school friend giving evidence. This friend also claimed the complainant had said she'd dreamed of making love to the defendant. Later, the earlier claims to more serious allegations were withdrawn. The girl said she was only joking and had made it up. RISE IN NUMBER OF INNOCENT VICTIMS A quite worrying statistic, is the number of men freed on Appeal, having been convicted by a Jury of 12 members of the public. Clearly, then the decisions reached by many Juries are flawed. To a high degree it's a game of chance relying on the mood of the jurors and the relative skills or degrees of effort, of the prosecuting and defending barristers.

Even more worrying, is the fact there is no automatic right of Appeal. An innocent man must remain in prison relying on friends and family, and hoping some new evidence will come to light to give any chance of an Appeal. The odds against this happening are hundreds to one against. Which raises the question as to how many innocent men are behind bars with no safety net? RECENT MEN CLEARED ON APPEAL

Question: Juries in criminal cases in Scotland uniquely consist of how many members?
Answer: 15